Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee made cash deposits after demonetization, which were added as unexplained income under sections 69A r.w.s. 115BBE by lower authorities, amounting to Rs. 21.50 lakhs. The assessee contended the source of these deposits was cash rental income and previous cash withdrawals from current and preceding assessment years.
Held
The Tribunal observed that neither the assessee fully proved the source of deposits nor the department could entirely rebut the claims. Considering the peculiar facts, the Tribunal held that a lump sum addition of Rs. 10 lakhs was just and proper, thereby granting the assessee a relief of Rs. 11.5 lakhs. This estimation is not to be treated as a precedent.
Key Issues
Whether cash deposits made after demonetization, claimed as rental income and previous withdrawals, constitute unexplained income under sections 69A and 115BBE of the Income-tax Act.
Sections Cited
69A, 115BBE, 143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA
Assessment Year: 2017-18 Smt. Sunita Jain, Vs. ACIT, H. No. 567, Sector-43, Circle-58(1), Gurgaon, Delhi Haryana PAN :AAFPJ3512M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. P.K. Jain, Adv. Sh. Manoj Kumar Lohia, Adv. Department by Sh. Yogesh Sharma, Sr. DR Date of hearing 05.11.2024 Date of pronouncement 29.11.2024 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2017-18, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)-NFAC”] Delhi’s DIN and order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1065075133(1), dated 22.05.2024, involving proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.
It emerges at the outset that both the learned lower authorities have made section 69A r.w.s. 115BBE unexplained income addition of Rs.21.50 lakhs in the course of assessment framed on 01.12.2019 as upheld in the CIT(A)’s order.
Learned counsel’s case in the light of voluminous supportive material is that impugned cash deposits in fact represent her cash rental income as well as previous cash withdrawals, including those in the preceding assessment years.
My attention is further invited to the statement of facts in the instant case file wherein the assessee claims that she had made the impugned cash deposits after demonetization and the source thereof is from the foregoing heads only. I have given my thoughtful consideration to vehement rival stand and find no reason to accept either parties’ submission in entirety. This is for the precise reason that neither the assessee has been able to plead and prove the source of the impugned cash deposits to previous withdrawals and cash rental income by discharging her onus satisfactorily nor the department could rebut the fact of her having owned residential property concerned and preceding withdrawals, which have not been properly reconciled.